Surrendering to ISIS is the Only Way to Defeat It
By Daniel Greenfield
SultanKnish.Blogspot.com
If you’re keeping score, freeing Islamic terrorists
from Gitmo does not play into the hands of ISIS.
Neither does bringing Syrians, many of whom
sympathize with Islamic terrorists, into our
country. And aiding the Muslim Brotherhood parent
organization of ISIS does not play into the Islamic
group’s hands.
However
if you use the words “Islamic terrorism” or even
milder derivatives such as “radical Islamic
terrorism”, you are playing into the hands of ISIS.
If you call for closer law enforcement scrutiny of
Muslim areas before they turn into Molenbeek style
no-go zones or suggest ending the stream of new
immigrant recruits to ISIS in San Bernardino, Paris
or Brussels, you are also playing into the hands of
ISIS.
And if you carpet bomb ISIS, destroy its
headquarters and training camps, you’re just playing
into its hands. According to Obama and his experts,
who have wrecked the Middle East, what ISIS fears
most is that we’ll ignore it and let it go about its
business. And what it wants most is for us to
utterly destroy it. Or as Canadian prime minister
Justin Trudeau said, "If you kill your enemies, they
win."
But maybe if you surrender to them, then you win.
Tens of thousands of Muslim refugees make us safer.
But using the words “Muslim terrorism” endangers us.
The more Muslims we bring to America, the faster
we’ll beat ISIS. As long as we don’t call it the
Islamic State or ISIS or ISIL, but follow Secretary
of State John Kerry’s lead in calling it Daesh.
Because terrorism has no religion. Even when it’s
shouting, “Allahu Akbar”.
Obama initially tried to defeat ISIS by ignoring it.
This cunning approach allowed ISIS to seize large
chunks of Iraq and Syria. He tried calling ISIS a
J.V. team in line with his claim that, “We defeat
them in part by saying you are not strong, you are
weak”. Unimpressed, ISIS seized Mosul. It was still
attached to the old-fashioned way of proving it was
strong by actually winning land and wars.
Europe and the United States decided to prove that
we were not at war with Islam by taking in as many
Muslims as we could. Instead of leading to less
terrorism, taking in more Muslims led to more
terrorism.
Every single counterintuitive strategy for defeating
Islamic terrorism has been tried. And it has failed.
Overthrowing “dictators” turned entire countries
into terrorist training camps. Bringing Islamists to
power in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia led directly to
attacks on American diplomatic facilities. The
Muslim Brotherhood showed no gratitude to its State
Department allies. Instead its militias and forces
either aided the attackers or stood by and watched
while taking bets on the outcome.
Islamic terrorism has followed an intuitive pattern
of cause and effect. There’s a reason that the
counterintuitive strategies for fighting Islamic
terrorism by not fighting Islamic terrorism don’t
work. They make no sense. Instead they all depend on
convincing Muslims, from the local Imam to Jihadist
organizations, to aid us instead of attack us by
showing what nice people we are. Meanwhile they also
insist that we can’t use the words “Islamic
terrorism” because Muslims are ticking time bombs
who will join Al Qaeda and ISIS the moment we
associate terrorism with the I-word.
There are contradictions there that you can drive a
tank through.
The counterintuitive strategy assumes that Islamic
terrorism will only exist if we use the I-word, that
totalitarian Jihadist movements want democracy and
that our best allies for fighting Islamic terrorism
are people from the same places where Islamic
terrorism is a runaway success. And that we should
duplicate the demographics of the countries where
Islamic terrorism thrives in order to defeat it.
The West’s counterterrorism strategy makes less
sense than the ravings of most mental patients. The
only thing more insane than the counterintuitive
strategy for defeating Islamic terrorism is the
insistence that the intuitive strategy of keeping
terrorists out and killing them is what terrorists
want.
If you believe the experts, then Islamic terrorists
want us to stop them from entering Europe, America,
Canada and Australia. They crave having their
terrorists profiled by law enforcement on the way to
their latest attack. And they wish we would just
carpet bomb them as hard as we can right now.
When ISIS shoots up Paris or Brussels, it’s not
really trying to kill infidels for Allah. Instead
it’s setting a cunning trap for us. If we react by
ending the flow of migrants and preventing the next
attack, ISIS wins. If we police Muslim no-go zones,
then ISIS also wins. If we deport potential
terrorists, ISIS still wins.
But if we let ISIS carry out another successful
attack, then ISIS loses. And we win. What do we win?
It depends. A concert hall full of corpses. Marathon
runners with severed limbs. Families fleeing the
airport through a haze of smoke. Only by letting
ISIS kill us, do we have any hope of beating ISIS.
Politicians and experts claim that ISIS is insane.
It’s not insane. It’s evil. Its goals are clear and
comprehensible. The objectives of the Islamic State
are easy to intuitively grasp. Our leaders and
experts are the ones who are out of their minds.
They may or may not be evil, but they are utterly
insane. And they have projected their madness on
Islamic terrorists who are downright rational
compared to them.
Unlike our leaders, Islamic terrorists don’t confuse
victory and defeat. They aren’t afraid that they’ll
win. They don’t want us to kill them or deport them.
They don’t care whether we call them ISIS or Daesh.
They don’t derive their Islamic legitimacy from John
Kerry or a State Department Twitter account. They
get it from the Koran and the entire rotting corpus
of Islamic law that they seek to impose on the
world.
Our leaders are the ones who are afraid of winning.
They distrust the morality of armed force and
borders. They disguise that distrust behind
convoluted arguments and counterintuitive
rationales. Entire intellectual systems are
constructed to explain why defeating ISIS is exactly
what ISIS wants.
After the San Bernardino shootings, Obama insisted
that, “Our success won’t depend on tough talk or
abandoning our values... That’s what groups like
ISIL are hoping for.” But ISIS does not care whether
Obama talks tough, even if it’s only his version of
tough talk in which he puffs out his chest and says
things like, ”You are not strong, you are weak.” It
is not interested in Obama’s “right side of history”
distortion of American values either.
ISIS is not trying to be counterintuitive. It’s
fighting to win. And our leaders are fighting as
hard as they can to lose.
The counterintuitive strategy is not meant to fight
terror, but to convince the populace that winning is
actually losing and losing is actually winning. The
worse we lose, the better our plan is working. And
when we have completely lost everything then we’ll
have the terrorists right where we want them.
Just ask the dead of Brussels, Paris, New York and a
hundred other places.
This isn’t a plan to win. It’s a plan to confuse the
issue while losing. It’s a plan to convince everyone
that what looks like appeasement, defeatism,
surrender and collaboration with the enemy is really
a brilliant counterintuitive plan that is the only
possible path to a lasting victory over Islamic
terrorism.
But intuitive beats counterintuitive. Winning
intuitively beats losing counterintuitively.
Counterintuitively dead terrorists multiply, but
intuitively they stay dead. Counterintuitively, not
discussing the problem is the best way to solve it.
Intuitively, you solve a problem by facing it.
Counterintuitively, collaborating with the enemy is
patriotism. Intuitively, it’s treason.